It's honestly pretty pathetic that you're going back and forth on whether or not you actually are tracking every person who ever carries a gun m2b. Might want to figure that out before continuing.

Banning guns outright is pretty harsh, the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms. But it doesn't say that the government can't regulate:

1. Which guns you can own
2. Where you can have guns in your possession
3. How hard it is to get a gun legally

I am all in favor of having guns in a household for personal protection. However, there should be limitations on which guns any person can own. In addition, if you bring a gun out in the public and are caught then your gun rights get taken away and/or you get fined and/or jail time. If there is ever a shooting accident in your household, then you lose the right to own a gun. Finally, background checks have to be mandatory; no selling of guns at gun shows. If a seller of guns is shown to have not done a background check on any person, they lose the right to sell guns. In addition, all prospective gun owners should be required to take a psych exam.

Hopefully these rules can maintain the property protection that the 2nd amendment embodies deep down (and not the militia part, times change) while eliminating people who aren't acting in a safe manner with their guns. Also should eliminate the whackos that buy guns with the psych test.

Is this too restrictive? I'm sure many will say yes. Essentially hunting will end and so will going to the gun range for some fun shooting. But that isn't the importance of guns and why our founding fathers put it in the Constitution. We as a society need to balance protection of our property vs. the safety/lives of our society.

Flame away :-)

Fairly uncontroversial.
This has already been ruled unconstitutional in federal appellate court.
The vast majority of gun sales at gun shows have checks.
Done already for dealers
Most likely useless.

It's a moronic idea tbqh that is both unconstitutional and unenforcable. Your idea is about as good as banning drugs.

Tracking the guns, not the people. You don't have to carry your gun with you.

No, but you legally have to keep records of where/how your pesticides are being applied. So in a sense, yea, they can track the farmers/pesticide applicators when they are applying pesticides by looking back at the records and seeing what fields were being sprayed and when. OH NOES THE GOVERNMENT IS FORCING FARMERS TO SPY ON THEMSELVES!

Well you answered no to the first question, how about the second, "does using your second amendment rights give up your 4th and 5th, or the privacy clause?"

I know you think you're being cute, but 2A rights are fundamentally guaranteed by the constitution. Frankly, you know you have absolutely no case here. It's boring.

Please, tell me, what 2A rights are fundamentally guaranteed?

The right to own nukes and grenade launchers and stuff.

Yeah, this is about what I expected.

Do you even know what the bold means?

Quick start googling!

Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew
The more than 100 gun deaths that have already happend in the US since Sandy Hook are more than the average # that occur in England per year.

[It's a good thing England doesn't have our violent TV shows and video games.]

Wait. Did ikes just say the Constitution grants us the right to own nukes, or am I taking crazy pills again?

Correx: 100 gun deaths that have happened in the US since Sandy Hook are more than the number that occurred in England in last 3 *years*.

The 100 gun deaths that have happened in one week in the US since the sandy hook rampage are greater than the average amount of gun deaths that occur in one year in England. It's a profound statement, I wish it carried more weight in the US.

JFC.

Maybe, but the amount of FREEDOM that Americans have experienced since Sandy Hook is more than those Brits have experienced in the last 7 years.

Yeah, but what about all the non-gun violent crime in England. Gotcha.

Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew
The NRA President's son went to jail in 2002 for shooting at another driver during an incident of road rage.

The problem here is obviously that the other driver wasn't packing.

ChrisV you're needed in the sttf **** thread. Josem is spewing Aussie gun control.

I maybe wrong, but UK law system is a lot softer then USA law system. In USA if you commit a crime you are going to jail, in UK there is a big chance that you will avoid punishment.
This + high restrictions on use of force by police (they don't ever use guns or tassers, unless extreme situation). + overprotective laws towards the youth (untouchable even when clearly violent) = high rate of lower end crimes.

I would not blame the lack of guns in such context.

The Express is not a valid source of anything.

My post is based on personal impression, express was just the 1st site I could google. Other sources can be found, example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-warders.html
Anyone would surely get LONG years in prison in the states for beating up Six officers? Or just shot on the scene.

LOL, Daily Mail is even worse. A good litmus test to measure someones personality here is; If they read The Express or The Mail, they are probably a c**t.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-on-crime.html
http://www.totalpolitics.com/article...on-crime.thtml
http://www.crp-news.com/htm/n20110825.561084.htm
I could google more. But my point is that: UK non deadly crime rate is higher then USA's, not because the gun ban, but rather because the softer punishments, that in turn increase the number of repeating offenders.

3rd time lucky.